Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33398566›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Comparative perioperative and 5-year outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic or open inguinal hernia repair: a study of 153,727 patients in the state of New York.

Talar Tatarian, Lizhou Nie, Connor McPartland, Andrew M Brown, Jie Yang, Maria S Altieri, Konstantinos Spaniolas, Salvatore Docimo, Aurora D Pryor

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Talar TatarianDepartment of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, 211 S 9th Street, Suite 402, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. talar.tatarian@jefferson.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0845-3659
Lizhou NieDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Connor McPartlandDepartment of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, 211 S 9th Street, Suite 402, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Andrew M BrownDepartment of Surgery, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Jie YangDepartment of Family, Population and Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Maria S AltieriDepartment of Surgery, East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA.
Konstantinos SpaniolasDepartment of Surgery, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Salvatore DocimoDepartment of Surgery, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Aurora D PryorDepartment of Surgery, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to examine the perioperative outcomes of robotic inguinal hernia repair as compared to the open and laparoscopic approaches utilizing large-scale population-level data.

methodsThis study was funded by the SAGES Robotic Surgery Research Grant (2019). The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) administrative database was used to identify all adult patients undergoing initial open (O-IHR), laparoscopic (L-IHR), and robotic (R-IHR) inguinal hernia repair between 2010 and 2016. Perioperative outcome measures [complications, length of stay (LOS), 30-day emergency department (ED) visits, 30-day readmissions] and estimated 1/3/5-year recurrence incidences were compared. Propensity score (PS) analysis was used to estimate marginal differences between R-IHR and L-IHR or O-IHR, using a 1:1 matching algorithm.

resultsDuring the study period, a total of 153,727 patients underwent inguinal hernia repair (117,603 [76.5%] O-IHR, 35,565 [23.1%] L-IHR; 559 [0.36%] R-IHR) in New York state. Initial univariate analysis found R-IHR to have longer LOS (1.74 days vs. 0.66 O-IHR vs 0.19 L-IHR) and higher rates of overall complications (9.3% vs. 3.6% O-IHR vs 1.1% L-IHR), 30-day ED visits (11.6% vs. 6.1% O-IHR vs. 4.9% L-IHR), and 30-day readmissions (5.6% vs. 2.4% O-IHR vs. 1.2% L-IHR) (p < 0.0001). R-IHR was associated with higher recurrence compared to L-IHR. Following PS analysis, there were no differences in perioperative outcomes between R-IHR and L-IHR, and the difference in recurrence was found to be sensitive to possible unobserved confounding factors. R-IHR had significantly lower risk of complications (Risk difference - 0.09, 95% CI [- 0.13, - 0.056]; p < 0.0001) and shorter LOS (Ratio 0.53, 95% CI [0.45, 0.62]; p < 0.0001) compared to O-IHR.

conclusionIn adult patients, R-IHR may be associated with comparable to more favorable 30-day perioperative outcomes as compared with L-IHR and O-IHR, respectively.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultHerniorrhaphyHumansNew YorkInguinal herniaOutcomesRecurrenceRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID33398566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.